Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Clerks at WP:CHU

I have dug and dug and found no reference to any discussion related to the instillation of clerks as a process method management at WP:CHU. I am not asking if any bureaucrats agree with that decision. I am asking if (1) there was any discussion and (2) were the bureaucrats at all involved in that discussion (other than Essjay)? --Durin 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Daniel Bryant and I were on the way to ask a related question: Do the bureaucrats wish to continue using the clerks, and if so, in what role, and what actions (if any) would editors who are not clerks be asked not to do. Before I knew that Essjay would be leaving permanently I made some comments at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations that reflected my opinion at the time. I also have a draft revision of the clerks' page at User:Thatcher131/temp. It appears that Essjay's intent was to have requests verified by a group of trusted users so they could be quickly fulfilled without the bureaucrats having to take the time to verify them themselves. Although Essjay appears (and I stress appears, because I am not a mind reader) to have intended that only clerks make such remarks, it would also perfectly reasonable to allow other editors to do so as long as they were confirmed by a clerk or bureaucrat as being accurate. (And I also stress that being trusted is different from being trustworthy; most wikipedians are trustworthy, but actual trust requires at least some familiarity with a person to have confidence in their actions.) Ultimately I believe that the bureaucrats have the latitude to organize their functions as they choose; the clerks serve (or do not) at their pleasure. We can discuss it further here or perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Clerks. Thatcher131 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll re-iterate my question. I'm interesting in knowing if there was any discussion before the clerks were instituted at WP:CHU and if the bureaucrats were involved in that discussion (other than Essjay). I'd like to stay focused on that question. I appreciate your input of course, Thatcher. --Durin 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, both questions need to be answered, then, although I don't quite understand your point. Essjay is gone, and going forward the bureaucrats will either ratify the clerks and accept their services or they won't. Thatcher131 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is the clerk position for WP:CHU was done without community approval, without other bureaucrat involvement. There's was blatantly enough opposition to it at WP:CN to show a lack of consensus that it was a good idea. It should be summarily removed. An obvious grounds for doing so is whether the bureaucrats were even involved in the discussion (much less the community). --Durin 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have found the clerk comments exceedingly useful in fulfilling usurpation requests over the past several days. I could, of course, do all of this footwork myself; it would take a bit longer but I would survive -- yet as long as there are clerks who wish to help, I will not turn them away. It ensures that the fulfilment of requests can happen on time, and keeps the entire process running smoothly. As for the username change page itself -- the research consists merely of glancing at the name to determine whether it violates the username policy, and glancing into the page history to confirm the user's identity. I am unsure as to what function a clerk could serve there. Unless I have forgotten some important step, I don't believe clerks are necessary on that page. I don't know whether there was any prior discussion, though I can't quite fathom how that is relevant now. — Dan | talk 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The decision to ask the clerks to help with CHU was made by Essjay and I together, during a discussion on IRC. It happened during a time when Nichalp was on wikibreak and Warofdreams and Pakaran, who had been doing renames as well, had both cut back in their bureaucrat work considerably, which meant that Essjay and I were the only Bcrats handling renames.
It was done because we were turning down a considerable number of requests solely due to silly errors in filling out the template for requests, which, when we were doing it by ourselves, meant that the requests would be denied, since we could not afford to correct errors and go searching for the users themselves (since a very common mistake was that users were misspelling their own usernames, rendering the links generated by the template useless). Sometimes, we'd have a few people who would take an interest and help out with the more obvious mistakes, such as that the username selected was taken, or that it was inappropriate, but most would soon move on and stop assisting.
Essjay and I both went to the clerks' channel on IRC and asked if they wouldn't mind taking on this extra responsibility, which would help us cut back on the rejection of requests — or at least, we'd no longer have to turn people down for silly mistakes while filling out the template, or even point out the event that they had selected a already-taken username.
Personally, I'm much obliged to the clerks for the work they've been doing there, and I hope they will continue to do. Again personally, I'm not opposed to having other users participate as well in assisting the Bcrats with the more, well, bureaucratic part of this work, particularly now that Essjay is gone. However, since we've asked that the clerks do exactly this work for us, I would have to ask them if they mind having other people do their job with them on this particular forum — CHU is a lot less complex for clerking than, say, RCU, where I'd think there'd be no questioning about keeping the clerking restricted to the Clerks. In the case of CHU, however, if the clerks are ok with it, and that is key, I would not mind having people like Durin help as well. However, if the Clerks prefer that they be the only ones doing the clerking there, then I say we must respect this, in light of the important work that is provided not only to the Bureaucrats, but to all of those who might be seeking a username change. Redux 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself and Daniel, but we feel we serve you, not the other way around. I think it is important to make the process more wiki-like, and I see no reason to ask other editors to avoid helping to spare the clerks' feelings. If the bureaucrats think that restricting certain kinds of comments to only clerks is of benefit, then we can specify that. Otherwise, the less restrictions, the better, with the caveat, of course, that people who persistently make unhelpful or incorrect comments will be asked to move on. Thatcher131 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
From my non-clerk, non-bureaucrat opinion, I originally began helping out at the usurpations page because I could, but I stopped when there was a message asking everyone who wasn't a clerk to stop helping. I've begun helping out again, so the page doesn't get backlogged, but it would be nice to know that I'm not stepping on any toes. I imagine others have the same questions as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I say 'go for it'. I suppose the same goes for anybody who wishes to help, with the provision that if you wish to do the job, you must do it right; the very fundament of this job is that bureaucrats should not have to double-check the work of the clerks. If we end up with too many or too few, we will deal with it. Is there any particular barrier to becoming a clerk? Titoxd and Durin, why don't you just join up and make it official? — Dan | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Picaroon 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Needs to be worked on. Problem is there are two different clerk functions, answering to different groups of functionaries, with different levels of responsibility. A checkuser clerk can't really do anything wrong except give bad advice or mess up an archive. A CHU clerk could, by giving bad advice or not understanding policy, cause a rename or usurpation to go wrong. As Redux said, when things got bogged down, Essjay recruited the clerks he already had in his pocket from RFCU. I'm not sure about splitting the two groups entirely, it would make organization and communication more difficult. However some rethinking is already underway. I already know what the checkusers want and expect; I needed to clarify the same from the bureaucrats. Thatcher131 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So what is the problem? We have more clerks than we could possibly use. If a backlog develops we'll pull more from this list. Evidently this is a desirable position; it would be unfair for people to cut in line. — Dan | talk 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I don't understand. If it is unfair to cut in line, it means I have to go sign up in some odd page and wait until someone picks me? I would sign up to be a clerk, but I don't want anything to do with RFCU, Arbitration, Mediation, or anything remotely similar. Changing usernames and dealing with abusive users are two functions fundamentally different in character. While a given user could be capable of handling both, it doesn't mean that he or she desires to do both. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict with Titoxd, whose post reinforces my first paragraph> Using the hook from what Thatcher just wrote: I agree that creating two classes of clerks, or splitting the position in two, presents certain, potential problems. On the other hand, we've had two new facts that introduced new elements surrounding the position of clerk: 1) the beginning of clerking on CHU; 2) the inception of CHU/U, which is also clerked and presented a new CHU-related work. Since those two things came into being, I noticed that 3 of the 5 last people to list themselves in the Standby list for the job manifested specifically the desire to clerk at CHU. Although it hasn't been spelled out, it would not be surprising if other people would prefer to clerk only for the CheckUser forum, or even if some of the existing clerks would prefer either to go back to clerking at RCU only or to focus on CHU only. Far from me to suggest the creation of further bureaucracy on Wikipedia, but if we accomodate people's inclinations, we might be able to get very good results. I would leave to the clerks the decision on whether or not it would desirable, or appropriate, this kind of specialization, so to speak. And I don't think that would exclude the possibility that those clerks who are willing can continue to clerk for both forums.
And now I'd like to address the question about the clerks' role on CHU, as asked:
What the Bureaucrats need from the clerks is basically to fix silly mistakes made by the requesters and point out the impediments to the fulfilling of their requests. Rejecting a request remains a Bureaucrat function. So, a couple of examples:

  • The requester misspelled his/her own username while filling out the template OR the requester forgot to use the underscore ("_") to fill spaces in their usernames, which brakes the template: please fix it if possible; if not, leave a note that the requester will need to fix it her/himself. If they don't, a Bureaucrat will officially reject the request in one or two days (ideally);
  • Username requested is either taken or is inappropriate due to policy: please leave a note asking the requester to repost asking for a different name. A Bureaucrat will reject the old request as soon as possible.

In all other cases, the clerks can always leave a note to inform the requester of any problem with their requests, or to call the Bureaucrat's attention to those problems. But the Bcrat will reject the request if it's the case — an obvious example would be if the requester gives a reason that is clearly insufficient to justify a username change, or if the account has only a handful of edits.
If anyone who is not a clerk will be doing this kind of work on CHU, please adhere to that as well. The bottom line would be: if you are not a Bureaucrat, please do not "reject" the request yourself. If the problem(s) with it is/are beyond repair, leave a note calling the Bureaucrat's attention to the problem, and/or informing the requester that s/he will have to repost with the necessary adaptations. This is necessary even in obvious cases, since otherwise the requester will always have room to complain about "why was my request rejected by someone who is not a Bureaucrat", which will only create more work for us to do, in order to address the complaints. Hopefully, this will help. Redux 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Redux. That will help a lot. In further response to Titoxd, arbitration is a whole 'nuther ball of wax, and clerks don't do mediation and don't have to be admins. As a result of how the clerks were established, the checkuser clerks are also the username clerks. This doesn't have to be the case. Or it can be the case but you could choose to specialize in the area you want, like some admins specialize in image policy and others in AfD. That's why I wanted to have this discussion.
I admit to being conflicted over the waiting list. I don't really know how many clerks is too many. And I'm not sure yet whether the title "clerk" should have any significance over general helpers. Herewith a thought experiment...
  • Suppose that clerks were described as editors who had experience and demonstrated knowledge of the policies and procedures relating to CHU and/or CU; as resources for persons requesting help; and as editors trusted by the functionaries (bureaucrats and checkusers) to keep the pages running smoothly. That would not bar other editors from helping, although such helpers might get their work double-checked by the clerks.
  • Suppose further that everyone on the current waiting list is designated a "clerk." There would be 25 or so, way too many for the current amount of work to do. The law of supply and demand would predict that some would get bored and wander off until the available clerks more or less matched the available workload.
  • Suppose on the other hand that we kept the list of active clerks at oh let's say 10, but with a statement that anyone who wanted to help could, provided their help was accurate and according to policy. Some clerks might check their watchlists to find that everything needing doing had already been done by a non-clerk. To my mind, anyone who would take offense at that isn't clerk material, at least not on Wikipedia. The clerks would still provide a necessary cross-check, and the next clerks would be drawn from the pool of active helpers rather than a static list. (At Arb clerks, a completely separate function, we've done away with the waiting list, and new candidates are selected from among the helpers who have been useful and who haven't wandered away.)
I'm still working this out, and I need to consult with the other clerks when I have something to go on. If we are not going to be coordinated by a single guru on a mountaintop, and are going to organize ourselves instead, we should try for some semblence of consensus. Thatcher131 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Responding to points above; No, I'm not going to sign up to be a clerk. I'm sorry. I see it as being hopelessly bureaucratic (no play on words intended), most especially when the very first page says "anyone can edit". Either you trust users or you don't. If I conduct myself according to whatever the standards are at WP:CHU and assist in the process there, I shouldn't have to have a special "clerk" badge to grant me permission to assist. If people are offended that a person is willing to assist in an area of interest for them, and that person does the job appropriately, then it is the offended people who are the issue, not the person conducting themselves appropriately. All this talk of how best to create a clerk corps and manage that corps is, in my opinion, wholly silly.
  • Two, the clerks don't serve the bureaucrats any more than the rest of the community serves the clerks or the bureaucrats serve the community. We are all volunteers and are equals. Period. No qualification should ever be placed on that. We all serve the project, and that is it. The only exception to this is ArbCom, and that is the only exception there ever should be.
  • This quote from Thatcher sums up much of this, and obviates the need for clerks entirely; "Otherwise, the less restrictions, the better, with the caveat, of course, that people who persistently make unhelpful or incorrect comments will be asked to move on."
  • So write clear, easy to understand instructions on how to help at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. Expect them to be followed. If they are not, attempt to educate the editor. If the editor consistently refuses to abide by the instructions, block them. This isn't brain surgery, and it works brilliantly well throughout the rest of the project. There is no reason why WP:CHU or WP:CHU/U should be different.
  • There are thousands of competent people at Wikipedia. Restricting any section to a hand selected group creates oligarchical fiefdoms that are anti-thetical to our purposes here.
  • But, I suppose I'm tilting at windmills here. We already have clerks, so therefore we're going to have clerks. If the subject had been brought up before clerks were instituted, it's clear there would not have been consensus to do so. But, since it is a fait accompli, we'll have clerks. Nobody will have the foresight and willingness to correct the wrong. And this, my friends, is how we spin ourselves into bureaucratic ecstasy. This is how instruction creep and fiefdoms will continue to be built here. Have the courage to walk to freedom. We are the free' encyclopedia, not the oligarchical mini-fiefdoms encyclopedia. Let's break out of the middle ages and walk towards the information age, where we're trying to build a free, and open project. --Durin 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ALERT!!! Uh oh. I just made two edits to WP:CHU and an archive. I'm not a clerk. Quick! Somebody ban me as a disruptive user! The edit I made was to archive a request that was not archived by the bot because the "not done" tag was never signed. And none...not one of our 7 "active" clerks picked up on this after two days. I'm obviously not trustable or trustworthy. If I could possibly be so bold, if I could find something that could be improved and improved it, if I could be so ridiculously stupid as to assume that anyone can edit, I certainly should be blocked as a wholly disruptive user. Afterall, I might upset the entire clerk corps and cause them to resign, and we can't have that now can we? Somebody stop me! --Durin 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. Where did I put my thumbscrews? Thatcher131 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just proved, with those edits, that the clerk system at WP:CHU is useless. My other comments elsewhere on this topic show that it creates an oligarchical fiefdom that is obstructionist to the goals of the encyclopedia. If a clerk is the only trustworthy person who can edit WP:CHU other than bureaucrats and requesters, then somebody should undo my edits. They were obviously done by a non-clerk, and thus can not be trusted. Add simple, easy to follow instructions in their stead. Block people who refuse to abide by the instructions and willfully violate them. Have the courage to walk towards freedom. Deprecate WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U clerks. Now. --Durin 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read anything that was written above by either myself of the bureaucrats. I believe the clerks are useful and the bureaucrats seem to agree. I also understand that you are sincere in your position and I respect that although I disagree. I do not believe that clerks should get upset at (competent and accurate) help, but snarky comments such as above do not contribute to a pleasant environment. Thatcher131 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating obstructionist oligarchical fiefdoms that prevent users from editing things here in direct opposition to our core principles at Wikipedia:Five pillars creates a harshly unpleasant environment. All of you supporting this clerk system should ashamed. Instead, I'm being taken to task for looking upon this structure with disdain. The clerk system was put in place without any effort at community consensus, without community discussion, and my edits noted above prove you do not need a user-stratifying "clerk" badge to be trustworthy and make good edits. Indeed, get the thumbscrews. I'm off my rocker. snarky comment removed --Durin 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than 'good grief'. The distinction you're drawing here means vanishingly little to me. I wouldn't mind a casual group of users, unaffiliated with the other clerks, whom I understood to be good at their jobs; but there must be some sort of approval. As I've said above, the task becomes useless if absolutely anyone can do it, because bureaucrats need to be able to trust clerks' notes without double-checking. I would be just as happy with a group of users I know as with a group of users somebody else has approved to be called a 'clerk'.

I understand that being able to help out here means a great deal to you. Very well; go for it. I've not interacted with you much but I gather that a lot of people trust you to be generally sensible. I don't care enough about the principle here to insist that you become a clerk. I am of course not the only part of this process -- if the other clerks or bureaucrats get upset you really will have to move on -- but since you insist on making a fuss, you can have it your way. I must say, however, that I find the "step towards freedom" stuff a bit too dramatic for Wikipedia. If you have a valid point, it should be fairly easy to argue it without theatrics, which induce scoffing and undermine whatever you may really have to say. — Dan | talk 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You're supposing that my being able to help out at WP:CHU means a great deal to me. This isn't true. What means an immense deal to me is to tear down barriers to contributing ALL of our volunteer efforts here, not just those of an anointed few. If I continue editing at WP:CHU, and I do everything by the book, and I am asked to move on, there is a serious, serious problem. I maintain this has already happened. As to the theatrics; it is my intention to be so. I will madly flap my arms (or fingers in this case) when I see people intentionally deviating from our core principles. What clerks boil down to is "Oh you're all trusted, except we trust *these* people more!". We trust anonymous IPs with our most precious resource here, yet so far to a person every bureaucrat is unwilling to trust something as minor as WP:CHU to all but an anointed few. You want to scoff? Go for it. The more you scoff at my position, the more absurd your position becomes. I am backed up by core philosophies of Wikipedia, and it's provable. You are backed up by a willingness to create barriers to contributing here. It's creeping, and getting worse. Clerks at ArbCom. Clerks at WP:RFCU. Clerks at WP:CHU/U. Clerks at WP:CHU. "Verified users" at WP:OP (just an obfuscated name for "trusted user", which is all "clerk" means too). I don't care if you and every bureaucrat thinks I'm a raving lunatic. What's the quote? Never is a person so free who has nothing to lose. Something like that. None of you has been able to show that a person who is doing work at WP:CHU must have a clerk badge in order to do it, in order to be trusted. None of you. Failing that, there is no reason why the clerk role should exist. You either trust people, or you don't. Period. --Durin 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We're going back and forth here. Clearly some users are more trusted than others; this allows us to have administrators. If nobody is allowed to trust anybody more than anybody else among non-administrators, then not only can we not have the title 'clerk' -- we can have nobody performing the function of a clerk. As I have said twice above (I believe there has been no direct reply), in order for this job to be the least bit useful, bureaucrats must be able to trust clerk notes without double-checking. Allowing anybody to do it renders it useless. If you wish to abolish clerks and their functions altogether, you are welcome to make the case to each of the present clerks on their own talk pages that their actions, while helpful, are paving the road to serfdom. If you succeed you will have my congratulations, though the users who form the backlog of username change requests may not be so pleased. — Dan | talk 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The authority to deprecate the clerk system does not rest with the clerks. This is precisely the kind of fiefdom thinking I've been protesting against. The community decides these things, and no effort to do so was undertaken. Instead, it was done off wiki, on a clerk channel. It is hardly surprising that suggesting to the clerks that WP:CHU needed to be clerked would result in them clerking it. It is laughably absurd for me to repeat the operation of approaching the clerks about whether they think clerking at WP:CHU is a good idea; they will all, to a person, say that clerks are needed.
      • Allowing anybody to do it enhances it. I just proved the clerks aren't doing a sufficient job, by properly removing and archiving a request that had been sitting around for two days because it was not handled properly. All a bureaucrat has to do is to come across a dozen or so edits by User:JoeUser123 to see that what he is doing there is right and inline with the expectations of WP:CHU. From then on, he's trusted. No bureaucracy needed. If the bureaucrat comes across someone they are not familiar with, they check his edits a few times. I just don't see what the big deal is here that you MUST have an anointed few who you say you can trust. If it is so time consuming to check on an editor at WP:CHU that you are not familiar with that it causes WP:CHU to become backed up, then the answer is more bureaucrats; not an exclusionary club of "trusted" users which implies anyone else is untrusted.
      • We address backlogs in processes by finding people to help, not by creating barriers to helping! --Durin 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If the authority rests with the community, address your plea to the community. I think there's a community noticeboard too. If they wish to abolish the designation, I will help to make it so, on the username change pages at least. You have "proved" that the current clerks are slacking off by archiving a single old request? I hate very much to spoil your fantasy, but life would have gone on without your correction. I or somebody would have stumbled across it sooner or later, and it would all have been handled in due course. There's no immediacy about these things. Yes, we address backlogs by finding people to help -- well, there are a good many people helping already, and accordingly there are no backlogs. If one develops we will handle it. The process is working; why fix it? — Dan | talk 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I live in a fantasy world. I live in a world where anyone can edit Wikipedia. Apparently, this isn't reality. Apparently, I need a special nice shiny "clerk" badge in order to edit in the temple of WP:CHU. If I don't need this special badge, then why does the clerk badge exist? That paradox hasn't been explained.
      • One of the key problems here is that we are a community effort. We build this thing called Wikipedia through group efforts. No one person, or group of people, has all the answers. When you create exclusionary groups, you stifle creativity. You prevent new solutions from possibly coming to the fore that could solve problems. Instead, you create intractable groups that when asked to clerk predictably say "clerking is good!". This is absurd on the face of it.
      • I already raised the issue at WP:CN, and it's blatantly obvious from the discussion there that there is no consensus for the idea of clerks at WP:CHU. Since you bureaucrats refuse to have the courage to acknowledge there was no discussion for this, no consensus for this, you leave the community little choice but to WP:BOLDly remove the references to "clerk" at WP:CHU, and MfD the Wikipedia:Changing username/Clerks. It was done without the consent or even discussion with the community at the hands of two bureaucrats, one of whom is no longer active. --Durin 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the community noticeboard; it lasted about 24 hours, and is archived here. Thatcher131 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Username changes are boring and that anybody at all wants to help the bureaucrats is a blessing. If someone clamors to be allowed to help I'll glance through their contribs and raise no objections unless they look entirely crazy. All I can tell from the CN discussion is there is no consensus for much of anything. I still can't figure out what you're doing here -- you mention an MFD; go for it! — Dan | talk 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd rather avoid the MfD. You and I both know it's going to end up as no consensus and be a ridiculous demonstration. I'd rather see the bureaucrats remove the mention of clerks on the page, and delete the /clerks page as unneeded. Also create an instruction page that is a derivative of some of what is on the clerks page for people to follow to help the bureaucrats. That's the right thing to do. The bureaucrats put this ugly beast into place. They can remove it. --Durin 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have refactored the clerks page a great deal, and renamed it. As I have said, it is nothing to me whether these users are called 'clerks' or not. I intend to deal with problems in the new system as they arise, as I do not wish to over-bureaucratize the process by accounting for every contingency in advance. I'm not quite sure what you have in mind, but I hope this is some improvement. This does, after all, seem like a lot of to-do for such a small matter. — Dan | talk 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is a massive improvement. It removes obstacles to contributing and gets rid of the stratification of users (which often enough results in badge wearing). Thank you Dan for having the willingness to do this. Next up, this sort of thinking and progress making needs to be applied to WP:CHU/U, and further on to WP:RFCU and WP:OP (maybe those have been done already; I haven't checked). --Durin 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other clerk areas

That's odd, Durin said earlier he was withdrawing any objections to clerkhood. I guess that was just something he said to get people off his back. Milto LOL pia 06:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If Durin intends to start a storm at RFCU then I will respond in kind by recommending the suspension of the page. RFCU was created by checkusers for the benefit of the community and not the other way round. After some time checkusers found great benefit in establishing the clerks to deal with the bureaucratic backlog that developed and which was actively intefering with the checkusers' activities. Thanks to them, RFCU now runs smoothly, checkusers need worry only about the actual checks, and we have a comprehensive and consistent archive for past reference. These are all good things. The only backlog at checkuser now relates to the actual check execution, which only checkusers themselves can do.

Now, I'm very confused here. Durin is complaining loudly about being unable to help in a certain area (his idea), and has turned this into an indictment of a sector of Wikipedia, angering a number of good faith contributors in the process. I thought we were here to help Wikipedia, and not the other way round. There is no backlog at RFCU that he could help with. The volunteers working there now have ensured that there is none. Why for heaven's sake do you feel the need to create disruption? How will Wikipedia benefit from this? Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is basically what I've been trying to say on the matter, except that Mackensen's language was well-thought out and polite, unlike my own. So, for what it's worth, I think Mackensen hit the nail on the head. Milto LOL pia 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is all really quite simple. Read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Carefully. When you're done reading it, read it again. Keep reading it until it sinks in that we are a free content project, with no hard and fast rules that are immutable, and anyone...anyone...can edit.
  • The rationale that nobody else should be touching RFCU because it's working nicely is quite absurd. Wikipedia works as a community effort. No one person and no one group of people has all the answers. By blocking people out of contributing in any section of the community, you stifle forward progress. Do you really honestly believe that the only way, the best way, and there is no other way possible for RFCU to be handled is the way in which you guys have agreed it should be done? That's what you are expressing right now. This is absolutely astonishing arrogance.
  • If protesting how RFCU has managed to upset your cart so much that you'll pick up your toys and go home, then by all means please pick up your toys and go home. If you're looking for a sandbox, please go to Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you feel that my (verbal only mind you) protest against something in Wikipedia constitutes disruption, then you had better block me immediately! I am an obvious threat to RFCU. Get your targeting systems engaged and hit that block button! Can't have somebody running around complaining about the RFCU group now can we?
  • And yes, I did withdraw my complaints about the clerk systems before because it was apparent that Essjay was going to pick up his toys and go home. After reading User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox (see the deleted file), I realized just how negative and anti-wiki this philosophy is. I reversed my stance, and now yes I will work to unseat any person or group of people who think they are so important in their function at RFCU that it matters if they pick up their toys and go home. You obviously think way too highly of yourselves. Wikipedia has gone through a dizzying array of departures from minor to big, and guess what? This amazing thing happened. We moved on. So, even if every single person at WP:RFCU were to stop contributing there, it would still continue on in some form. --Durin 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If every single checkuser stopped contributing at RFCU then it would become a ghost town. You didn't specify what your pronouns referred to, which is most unhelpful. You haven't explained, at all, how you're planning to make things better. You also haven't demonstrated how you've been prevented from helping there. As far as I know, you've never tried to do anything there. You have, however, complained loudly and without justification that you can't edit there. This is an absurd position that you've taken and I kindly urge you to back down. RFCU works and has worked well for some time. You're welcome to edit there but if your changes aren't good then you'll get reverted because, well, that's the wiki way. Nothing in the five pillars says we have to break things on principle. In short, you have a philosophical objection that isn't grounded in any practical problems encountered but in your view that's sufficient to raise a stink. You also haven't explained how all this will help me, the checkuser, do my job. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we'd also be grateful if you dropped the martyr complex and engaged the issues. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, you'd better block me quick. I've got a martyr complex! <laugh>
  • I'll go back to what I have said repeatedly; if a non-clerk can perform functions at WP:RFCU that are in adherence with instructions and past practice, then there is no reason for the title of "clerk" and no reason for the absurd standby list. You either let people help, or you create an exclusionary little club that gets mad when others find fault with their tree house. How to make things better? Observe what Rdsmith4 did to clerks at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. That was a beautiful piece of editing he did. It can just as easily work at WP:RFCU and in so doing you remove barriers to people helping in ways they want to volunteer their efforts. Nothing in the five pillars says that we should create exclusionary groups. Show me where it does. I shouldn't have to have a clerk badge. If I can edit WP:RFCU without a clerk badge, then there's no reason for anyone to have clerk badges. I already explained to you how it will help you do your job. By stifling community creativity by creating an exclusionary club, you prevent the formation of new ideas. Nobody, not you, nt Jimbo, not anyone has all the answers. --Durin 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So go edit then. I'm not stopping you, nor is anyone else. I have no idea why people are adding themselves to a waiting list. Mackensen (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the bureaucratic structure exists. Lots of people tend to fall into that sand trap. If it's not needed, then get rid of the standby list (at a minimum). I'd recommend taking the action that Rdsmith4 did yesterday to the CHU clerks. It's a beautiful middle position that still preserves integrity of function without creating barriers to volunteering. --Durin 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just came across this diff on the standby list, added three days ago. If people have to come up with elaborate rationale why a standby list has to exist on what is supposed to be an open project, some serious rethinking is most likely indicated. --Durin 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I comment so late in the day, and have not read the above posts. I have a few points to answer:

  • Are clerks useful: Yes I agree. They make the process smoother for renames.
  • Is the work voluntary? Yes, like wikipedia they should be. The entire selection process should be transparent. If someone wants to volunteer, then by all means sign up on a page, read the basic procedures and help out in the voluntary wiki spirit. If you get bored, remove your name.
  • Are clerks 100% necessary? No. In the good 'ole days the entire process was hand done by bureaucrats. (Just like you don't need a car to walk 200 m down the road).
  • I saw Durin's post on WT:CHU, but I had no time to investigate what went bad between the two.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing went bad between Essjay and myself that has much of a connection to my protest against clerk roles. Essjay made me aware of them. I find fault with some of what he did. But any disagreements we had bear no relation to my current protest against clerks. I am not on a warpath against Essjay. Hell, he's gone. What would be the point? --Durin 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I read that right? If Durin continues to question the clerking process Mackensen wants RFCU shut down? I'm sorry but that seems over the top....good faith discussions (even if heated at times) are a perfectly acceptable way of doing business here. If "every single checkuser stopped contributing at RFCU", that says way more about those editors then it does anyone questioning the process. The defensiveness I'm seeing here is really counter productive. When a valued long time editor questions a process they shouldn't be shouted down. And the stakeholders in that process certainly shouldn't be holding the process hostage to closure if the debate continues (which has happened twice now). Yuck. RxS 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No, that's not what I said. What I said was that if he was about to go and break the system without good reason I'd set up shop elsewhere. Durin is a valued long time editor, but I would hope that I could be considered one as well, and I've been associated with the processes under consideration far, far longer than he has. If I'm on the defensive it's because Durin is on the offensive and as angered a number of people in the process, prompting at least on departure from the project and nearly causing another. I have also had difficulty assuming good faith given the Durin's abrasive behaviour throughout, and his assumption of bad faith (to my mind) towards the checkuser clerks. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If my actions have caused someone who advocates placing barriers to editing to leave the project, then I am sorry only that they think placing barriers was a good thing to do. I am not going to apologize for attempting to keep this project an open project. Further, I am not going to apologize if my raising a protest against this inherently anti-wiki system has angered people, nor will I step back from protesting it because the very people who are part of the system are the ones getting angry about it. It is no surprise they would get angry about it. In fact, we should expect them to get angry. It is a natural consequence to having a social construct undermined. I have no complaint with any particular checkuser clerk. I have a complaint with the checkuser clerk system. That does not imply bad faith assumptions on my part towards any clerk.
  • And I am not a valued editor. It is precisely that I am not a valued editor that I can freely speak my mind and turn these carts over and watch the apples go skittering about. I have no social currency here anymore, and most emphatically do not want any. It is central to my points that this be the case. Nobody should have to have any social currency in order to be a productive editor here. Stratification of users is flat wrong. All of us, to the last person, serve the project. --Durin 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, here's what you said: "If Durin intends to start a storm at RFCU then I will respond in kind by recommending the suspension of the page" Now we can disagree about what a storm means but that statement is certainly not meant to advance a discussion about clerks. It seems to me to be a threat. And as far as assuming bad faith about clerks, it's not an assumption of bad faith to question a process, the need for it and/or who it's being carried out. Anyway, threatening to suspend a process because people are questioning it is just not on. RxS 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not talking about "questioning." This has been an on-going controversy for about two weeks now--one which I thought had quietly died. It had seemed to me that the consensus on the Community Noticeboard was to let the matter rest right where it was. I'm still waiting to find out how we benefit from changing the existing system, which has functioned properly for some months. I'm also waiting for Durin to start helping out by making edits at RFCU since he's always been welcome to do so. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If I am welcome to do so, then you don't need clerks. Pure and simple. --Durin 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Not quite true. Clerks have consented to hang around. If I see something need doing there's a pool of individuals who I know to be capable of doing the job. Some of them are also experts on particular sockpuppeteers, which is invaluable since checkusers burn out faster than clerks. Are you willing to make that kind of commitment? Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • <undent> Then put a system in place like Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance! This system addresses that need, without putting in barriers to editing, without giving people shiny badges to wear. Whether I am willing to make the commitment or not is immaterial. There's a willing and capable public that is just *waiting* to help with these "mundane tasks", and they are being prevented from doing so. Why stop them? Why? The only arguement I've heard against that is that you don't want them bumping into each other. That should be a good thing that tasks are handled quickly. Not a bad thing. --Durin 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another idea

Arbitration proposed decision pages aren't normally protected. Let's let anyone edit them to add supports and opposes. Additionally, let's let every hoo-ha with the brains to make an account remove/modify cases and requests on a whim.

If this isn't a good proposal, let me ask this: how would dissolving the "position" of clerk change the ways in which you can help Wikipedia? Do you think it would be helpful to the arbs and CUs? So far those in favor of scrapping clerks have cited mostly philosophical reasons; are there any pragmatic ones? Milto LOL pia 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for one thing. But practically speaking, making a barrier for participation (waiting lists, closed IRC channels) will reduce interest and ability to take part. Limiting participation results in fewer people being familiar with the process involved. Then, as normal attrition occurs fewer people are active and backlogs are created as new people are brought up to speed (if any are interested at that point). RxS 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Like all editors, clerks may participate in arbitration cases by making proposals or commenting on the Evidence talk, Workshop and Workshop talk pages." Anyone can edit anything at RFAR, with the exception of the proposed and final decision pages. Since the Arbitrators are the only ones who can vote, it makes sense they are the only ones permitted to do so. Clerks at ArbCom have no special authority. At RFCU, they do; others can not edit what they can. If others can edit what they can, there's no point to having clerks. And there's the rub. Follow the model Rdsmith4 just put into place at WP:CHU. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance. It still provides the needed coordination without the shiny clerk badges.
  • You know, there once was a time when quite a number of users thought it somewhat offensive for an administrator to note they were an administrator. It was supposed to be a largely janitorial role. It's been elevated now, and nobody thinks anything of someone noting they are an administrator, much less on their userpage. Now, people walk around with all sorts of shiny badges stuck to their userpages, either as checkuser userboxes or as cute little icons stuck to the upper right of their userpages. Sigh. --Durin 17:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So, how would scrapping the clerks help the arbs and/or Checkusers? Milto LOL pia 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • See my practically speaking comment above. Basically, checkusers exist to benefit Wikipedia and Wikipedia doesn't benefit from having a process that closed to all but a very few editors. RxS 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning here (bear with me). Checkuser of course exists only to benefit Wikipedia--there would be no point otherwise. No one would contest that. Checkusers, of course, are drawn from a very narrow pool and the very nature of the task precludes expansion. No one would, I should think, would contest that either. Any user can submit a request for checkuser, which will be processed at the checkuser's discretion. So far, so good. Where do clerks/assisters/some name that doesn't offend people fit into all of this? They have been delegated by checkusers the responsibility of doing the mundane tasks that the checkusers didn't want to do anymore. If you look at the history of the RFCU page checkusers once handled everything, just as arbitrators once did everything at RFAR. With scope creep and increased demand comes delegation. This is why I seem to be cranky for no good reason--to my mind this entire question has been approached from the wrong direction. Mackensen (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • But isn't Wikipedia full of mundane tasks that no one (checkuser or not) wants to do? Checkusers are, as you say limited by the nature of the work they do. No question. But, a small group formally recognized to do their mundane (non-sensitive and in public view) tasks? I don't get it....if there is so much mundane work to be done, why limit participation? If there's a learning curve to it, mentor people or something. But it seems anti-Wiki and counter productive to limit participation in an area that needs a lot of "grunt" work. RxS 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
            • That line comes down to the fact that clerks are trusted, and anybody who isn't a clerk isn't trusted. So much for WP:AGF. It's a mundane task. Yet, you want to *prevent* people from helping with a mundane task? "No sir, thank you, I'll keep shoveling this pile of crap by myself thank you!" <rolls eyes> --Durin 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just ran into this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Guide#Dealing_with_non-clerks. "Dealing" with non clerks? That section reads pretty blatantly, if trying to handle such people that need to be "dealt" with nicely, that non-clerk contributions are unwelcome. Good grief. Was the Trojan Horse this high? --Durin 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting. That paragraph was added by Radiant (talk • contribs) just a week ago: [1]. Radiant is neither a clerk nor a checkuser, but he's certainly free to suggest it. Did you realize that before you posted? Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • QUICK! BLOCK HIM! HE'S A CLERK PAGE VANDAL! Certainly didnt' seem to raise any protest among the all-mighty clerk corps. --Durin 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I have no idea at this point what Durin is even talking about, and can only assume that he doesn't know either. That clerks are trusted does not imply that everyone else isn't trusted unless your process assumes bad faith by default. I hope Durin isn't claiming that. Checkuser clerks are trusted by checkusers to manage RFCU and, more broadly, to keep checkusers advised of checkuser-related goings-on. This they have done for months without criticism or complaint and I value their service. That they have the community's trust as well is demonstrated by the fact that several have gone on to become sysops. Most of what clerks do is indeed mundane work. As Durin says, anybody could do it (not that many want to). However, as I've stated elsewhere, it's mundane work that needs to be done in a consistent fashion. True, this can be done by having a thorough description of the task somewhere, but it's easier to have a small group of people who know the task and who talk to each other regularly. Again, there's nothing to stop any user from doing this work, but there does exist a small group who do the work regularly. We call these people clerks. Durin doesn't think this is a good idea because such a distinction is unnecessary and un-wiki. I will address these points below.

I have known some of the checkuser clerks for six months or more. During this time I've established a close relationship with them and they, in turn, have developed a good feel for how checkuser works--what's possible and what's not. As such, they're good at asking for additional information when needed. They're also good at refactoring a request and bringing forward the information that a checkuser will actually need. Furthermore, they're familiar with many of our most common sockpuppeteers and can share such information on request. This is a good thing, as I've said above, as checkusers burn out faster than clerks. This is the benefit of people who have committed to a particular task. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You can't be serious? "can only assume that [Durin doesn't know what's he's talking about either]". Ok, I'll add on to the other pejoratives people have been using of me late. Thank you! Another badge of honor!
  • The guide itself indicates, as I noted above, that non-clerks are basically told to get lost, and should go look at the backlogs. Non-clerks are to be "dealt" with, and you think this is a GOOD thing? Good grief. Shockingly, repulsively arrogant, most especially on an OPEN PROJECT. The clerk process doesn't assume bad faith by default, but it does assume incompetence by default. It demeans anyone who is not a clerk, and raises clerk onto a pedestal to be revered, which is shown in all the people that are clerks that wear it as a badge (look at the uses of icons and userboxes on their pages). The idea that there is nothing to stop someone from doing this stuff is flat wrong. The barrier is inherent to the system. If there is no barrier, then why is there a standby list? Why? If anyone can do it, then you don't need a standby list. If anyone can do it, you don't need the "clerk" title. The entire rationale paragraph that you made above reads thus; *these* people are good at it, and those *other* people are not. Good grief this reads like a Dr. Seuss book...you know, the one where some creatures had stars on their stomachs and others did not?
  • Oh and Mackensen? Please do go out of your way again to demean my protests as the words of a person who doesn't know what they are talking about anymore. --Durin 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought you didn't like badges? Best throw that one away. Did you see my comment above, where I pointed out that the language which so angers you was added by Radiant a week ago? I can't be defending language I don't know about it. I already said that I don't know why there's a standby list, but you keep waving it at me as though it's my fault. People add themselves to lists all the time. Stop ignoring what I've told you and I'll stop claiming that you don't know what you're talking about. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll wear self-deprecating badges all I like, thank you, as they don't stratify me above anyone else like clerk badges do. Yes, it was added by Radiant! When Hagermanbot signed it, Thatcher, a clerk, reverted the bot. So he obviously read it and approved of it enough to allow it to stay. And I'll keep raising the standby list as part of the problem for as long as it exists. I don't particularly care if *you* didn't put the standby list in place. It IS in place, and it is part of the problem. Just like the thinking espoused by what Radiant is in the system and at least approved by one of the clerks; you didn't suggest it or add it but it is part of the problem. That's how clerks view themselves. If they didn't view themselves that way, there wouldn't be any need to have a clerk role. All you'd need is an instructions list, as was recently done at WP:CHU. --Durin 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm done with this conversation. The only "problem" that's actually become apparent is that there isn't a backlog at RFCU so people can't edit there to remove the non-existant backlog. That speaks to the system actually working. This is un-wiki only in the sense that all other parts of the wiki have backlog without enough people helping with it. Durin, you are and have always been free to edit RFCU, you are free to avail yourself of the opportunity any time you'll like. I'll continue to use the term "clerk" to refer to people experienced with the process. Good day to you. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Then maybe you aren't part of the problem. Yet, you are a checkuser and you are in a position to fix the problem. The clerk system is inherently providing barriers to people helping at RFCU. There isn't any reason that I've seen put forth that a system virtually identical to that at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance can not be used in place of the clerk system. None. It works the same, and eliminates the barriers and badge wearing. If you think the standby list is wrong, then get rid of it. You're a checkuser. It was put in place to aid you. If it's not aiding you, then what's the point of it being there? --Durin 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the WP:RFCU page and for some time was the only person working it. It was a major load of tedium (something which I don't really care a lot for). When someone (I don't remember who) volunteered to help out with the administrative stuff so I could spend more of my limited time actually doing checkusers, I gratefully accepted the offer. That was the start of the "checkuser clerk" concept: someone who volunteered to help someone else out. I moved on to other issues and left RFCU in the hands of others for a time, then came back to find a nicely organized system that really allowed me, as a checkuser, to efficiently provide that particular service while other competent, committed, responsible, and well-organized volunteers would ensure that my time was not being wasted. I found the entire system highly beneficial and commend those who developed it. These people are trusted because they've earned that trust through dedicated and diligent service. And they got those positions by volunteering to do the work and then actually doing it and doing it well. I don't know what makes these people want to do this sort of thing. But they do, and they do a good job.
The first checkuser clerk had to figure it all out from scratch. The rest, however, could learn from those who came before. As far as I'm concerned, anybody can clerk on RFCU (whether or not "recognized" as one), as long as they do it right. There are very few places where rank has privileges; this is not one of those places. That said, if you do it wrong, you are likely to create extra work both for those who do it on a regular basis (the "recognized clerks") and, more importantly, for the checkusers themselves. Therefore, common courtesy as well as common sense requires that anyone who seeks to help out at RFCU should probably talk to the people who do it on a regular basis before trying to help out, just to make sure they really do understand how the system works.
As far as I'm concerned, Durin can play clerk on RFCU whether or not he has a badge. Hell, Karmafist can play clerk on RFCU if he wants -- as long as he does it right. There's no badges, just a responsibility to not make a mess. To that end, I do object to there being any formal system which gives special rights to regular clerks here, or any suggestion that regular clerks have special rights here or elsewhere that others might not. That said, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to question edits on RFCU by those who are not regular clerks, but they should not be reverted solely for the reason that they were made by "unauthorized persons". (Hopefully that's not totally unclear.) Kelly Martin (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, by and large, with Mackenson's and Kelly's comments above. Anyone who spends a lot of time at RFCU will tell you that substantially all the requests are made by people who are unfamiliar with the RFCU page and the checkuser process, and who more often than not have misconceptions about how socks dealt with by Wikipedia. Part of the reason for this is that the RFCU process is, by design, used rarely and does not involve community input, so most typical editors will never go through the process often enough to become familiar and comfortable with it. Hence, the value of individuals who attend to the organization of the page, the formatting of requests, and the archiving requirements. The clerks provide a valuable service.
While I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of "official clerks" for the page, I believe that it is important that we refrain from expecting people who make requests for checkuser to format the pages properly themselves. I also believe that it important to keep it clear that the page exists as a convenience to the people actually performing the checks, who are elected and who are operating within specific narrow guidelines issued by the WMF. This is in contrast to community process pages like XfD, RFA, and so on. I'll look in on the clerk pages and make some suggestions in that light. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not advocating deprecating the idea that people can help at RFCU. I am saying that the notion of "clerk" and how it has been implemented is intentionally exclusionary and inherently anti-wiki. The work that is being done can still be done with a structure like that at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance, without the obstacles and without the badge wearing. --Durin 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's no more antiwiki than the fact admins that can edit some pages that others can't. And no more insulting. Now I think it should be fairly obvious the clerks are very useful and that some users are simply not going to be trusted enough to be helpful. So whether there's a formal position that is allowed to help or just some people that are not, I don't really care I guess as long as the work gets done and there isn't disruption. What I've said before is that CHU is very far removed from helping to achieve the project's goals and we should reduce it to where the only reasons to grant requests are things such as privacy or other limited cases. If other's feel differently, meh, I'm not going to force the issue. I do agree with others here that you've not handled this issue well Durin. The same thing could have been accomplished with far far less heat and more light. Just because blocking you isn't the most fruitful solution, doesn't mean your methods couldn't improve a lot. - Taxman Talk 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see where the concept of trusted users come in. The only thing at issue here is the normal, mundane tasks that involve no sensitive information that's done in public view.
As Kelly said, it's all of our responsibility not to make a mess on Wikipedia. There's a learning curve everywhere on Wikipedia, (and to perhaps beat a dead horse) if there's a steeper then usual learning curve here I don't see how it helps us by limiting the number of people getting practice doing it. That's the cost of doing business the way we've choosen here.
And if extra work is created by mistakes new users make, that's also the cost of doing business the way we've choosen. In the end, more people active at RFCU will make the process more familar to more editors. That has to be a good thing. And, just to make another point, a closed IRC channel doesn't help. If only those formally recognised as clerks can join how does that help normalize the process for a greater number of editors? RxS 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A view from the peanut gallery

Unfortunately, this latest dust-up has caught me at a busy time both at work and at home. I am more than happy to make some adjustments to make checkuser clerks more similar to CHU/Assistance. Although I'm not sure why an arbitration case can take 2 months but if this isn't fixed RIGHT NOW it's suddenly a crisis. I would like to make a couple of points now (before I go back to paying work).

  • I think it should be noted that there is very little functional difference between CHU/Clerk and CHU/Assistance. Rdsmith4 wants helpers to sign up, so the bureaucrats can recognize their names and become familiar with them, and people who give bad advice will be asked to leave. Other than the waiting list and the title, it's about the same. The page is written in a more open fashion, which can certainly be done at checkuser.
  • Certain things about the way checkuser clerks evolved were very much Essjay's doing, and I was not always thrilled with the results. Both Daniel Bryant and I recognize the need for some changes; I'm sorry that I have responsibilities in the real world.
  • I am extremely disappointed in the way Durin has handled this issue, and it pains me to say so as he nominated me for adminship. After deciding that Essjay's "sandbox" approach was wrong, Durin took to CN with a flank speed assault on all the clerks' positions. Besides confusing the issue greatly (there are three types of clerks with different levels of responsibility, and only the CHU clerks were implemented without community involvement) it was not very wiki like at all. Durin could have started out at Talk:RFCU/Clerks and I would have been more than happy to engage him on the issues. Ultimately the reform, if you will, of CHU/Clerks into CHU/Assistance was a good thing, and similar lessons can be applied to RFCU/Clerks, but this experience has left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, and I would really rather that it not seem like Durin was enjoying stirring up trouble. Thatcher131 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thatcher, please do me the honor of reading the following in full. I recognize it is long, and I'm sorry for that. I am not asking you to agree with me. I just want you to understand my thinking and mindset on this and related issues.
  • First, I'm sorry the issue has been dragged out here. There are certainly more appropriate forums for it. The discussion here segued this morning after the WP:CHU clerks were abolished, and the discussion has been ongoing here since then with regards to RFCU I think in part because there were a number of relevant points already discussed here. That said, this is the inappropriate forum for this discussion now. I apologize that it has continued here and I was part and parcel of that problem.
  • Second, I am fully aware that my assault on the clerk system would mean cashing in all social currency I had left on the project. It was a conscious decision to do so. I recognized there would be people who would be upset at me taking this action at least in part because a previously respected user was, apparently, losing it and publicly licking his wounds and destroying himself (to paraphrase some). To be clear, I have no wounds to lick. As I've expressed elsewhere, I knew from the outset that my RfB was going to fail, I made a conscious decision to give up my adminship following my RfB long before I ever filed the RfB. This was a conscious, well thought out process.
  • So why did I do it? Sometimes, systems become so entrenched that there isn't a way of negotiating your way through it. At some point, you say "This is intolerable". My original intent in my path of action had solely to do with RfA. I did not expect the clerk office situation to become part of this, but my plan of action with regards to RfA allowed the clerk issue to dovetail into it rather nicely. Both systems are heavily entrenched. Both need major overhauls. Both have failed at attempts to show the supreme problematic nature of both. When this is recognized, you can choose to do one of two things; accept its evils or work to replace them with something that does work inline with the highest ideals of the project.
  • In approaching the clerk problem, I was very much aware that my attacking that system would result in people feeling attacked. But, it was never my intention to attack any single person. The reality was, the people comprised the system; there was no way to separate the two. It could not be helped that some people would feel attacked by the system and respond rather angrily, which has happened several times now. Such an inevitable reaction does not mean the path should not be undertaken. A Dilbert calendar on my wall says for February "Any job worth doing is too hard". Comedic, of course. But, too many people at Wikipedia have fallen into precisely this trap because they are unwilling to expend their social currency to get change done at Wikipedia. Why? Because too much of Wikipedia has become about badge wearing, and trying ever so hard not to make the all precious mistake of upsetting someone.
  • People routinely maintain shitlists around here. Here's one example: User:Rebecca/Users to watch. That shitlist has existed for nigh on three years now. I was on that shitlist for quite some time, just over a year. It's hardly surprising that Rebecca voted oppose at my RfB. It doesn't matter if it exists or not; if we push such lists off Wikipedia, people will still maintain them somewhere.
  • What this points to is a fundamental factor that undermines what it is we are trying to do here. If people don't *like* you, you are prevented from doing things you are clearly qualified to do. You have to build up social currency and expend it in tiny little sums in order not to piss off anyone such that you can't do what you want to do here. I ran across this yesterday on IRC where a steward said he was unwilling to spend his "rogue points" on en.wikipedia right now, and wanted to avoid controversy. That's exactly the sort of problem I am talking about. I spent a fair bit of time discussing the problematic nature of clerks and it was for naught; he was unwilling to implement the suggestion he made to solve it, and I do not have the social clout to implement it myself. That's a systemic failing.
  • Increasingly, people are of the mindset that there are roles within Wikipedia that are worth coveting. As a result of that, people raise barriers to getting those things. I keep running into these around Wikipedia, seemingly with every day that goes by. I'd thought originally that RfA was really the only big problem. But, there are others, and plenty of them. Since these roles are increasingly hard to get, people are afraid to expend their social currency lest they be prevented from attaining these lofty positions. This is pure sociology. The net result though is incredibly harmful to the project.
  • Take for example my work on fair use images. Lots of people respect me for the work. Many people know it needs to be done. There's *zero* question that it is inline with policy and is the right thing. I've been complimented up and down by lots of people that I have handled this properly, civilly, and have at all times done it well. Should I get credit for it? Absolutely not. Similarly, I should not be trashed in public by people because I have done it so well. Yet, that is precisely what has happened. I became pensive about my fair use work some months after I began it. It was shortly after I had removed every fair use violation from every single userbox in existence in the template space. I, naively, thought that I might want to do something else someday on Wikipedia that would involve having extra bits. I recognized that if I kept doing fair use work, I would run into enough people that hated me for doing it that it would prevent me from doing other kinds of work. I decided then, after some deliberation on it, that it was worth the effort; the goals of the project outweighed any need the project might have of me having extra bits. So, I kept at it....and made a lot of enemies doing it. Why? Because I was affecting their ever-precious userspaces, which is predominantly where I worked (that and userbox templates). This isn't myspace. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Yet, the work that I did to protect the encyclopedia (which people in droves agreed that it needed to be done) effectively prevented me from doing other things on Wikipedia because I had to expend social currency in order to do it.
  • I am sorry that you are disinclined to appreciate my methods. I have taken no pleasure from stirring up trouble, and to take pleasure from it would be a very sick thing indeed. My every intent has been to improve the project. Some may not appreciate my methods, but these things need to be said. All of us must have the ability to step back and be able to refocus our energies on what is we are trying to do. Much of the community has lost focus on this, and the Essjay controversy is a blatant symptom of that.
  • I'm not going to say I'm better than anyone else because I have stepped back and refocused, deciding that doing the right thing should always trump whether someone likes you or not. But, I am disappointed that so few people are willing to step back and ignore the fatally flawed system of social currency. I'll grant it feels dangerous to do so. It feels like you are giving up so much to stand up and say "This is ridiculously stupid, wrong, and we should be ashamed". There are very few people here who, because of this social currency system, feel free enough to stand up and say things are wrong. I'm hard pressed to think beyond Jimbo who these people might be. He is free. He can do what is right for the project. Anyone else stands to be treated very poorly if they do the right thing. Anyone.
  • Stepping down from adminship was a calculated move to give me the freedom necessary to do what the right things are. I am not the only one who has ever done this. I am sorely disappointed that several people have made implied threats of blocking me because I have taken the stance that I have, should I continue on with voicing it. In the end, so long as I follow our common practices in terms of not stepping over any block-worthy lines, there is nothing that anyone can do to me. I am still a member of this project in good standing. People might not like what I say. They might not like how I say it. But, I have the freedom to say it now. The sad thing is virtually everybody here is handcuffed in their ability to say anything controversial because of the social currency system.
  • I am sorry if this all means you or anyone else has lost respect for me. In the end, I consider the goals of the project more important than having anybody's respect. I grant that having that respect could be useful to achieving some ends towards the project goals, but what I have to say is so in opposition to commonly held beliefs here that having the respect is incompatible with saying it. The truths are too painful.
  • Am I wrong in all of this? Maybe. I could just be a gibbering idiot with a sandwich board on me saying "The end of Wikipedia is nigh! Repent!" Alternatively, there could be a few grains of truth in what I say, or even entire beaches of it. Take what you want from it. Lose respect for me if you want. But, at least take this; the goals of the project are being severely hampered by the social aspects of the society that has developed within it. Indeed, a group is its own worst enemy. --Durin 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice essay Durin. The shiney badges are a problem. The endless management and prettyfying of user pages, at the expense of editing the encyclopedia, is a problem. Empires within in empires, does it ever end? I can only assume they eventually go extinct or get knocked down (like Esperanza). How much of WP:WNP and other self serving type enterprises does wikipedia need? There really should be some alarm that stops people editing when their ratio of total edits to main space edits gets too bloated. Too often the encyclopedia is forgotten in the rush for those shiny trinkets. It is a huge distraction. David D. (Talk) 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(commenting as a non-crat, non-admin, non-clerk; nothing but just an editor). After going through the discussion above (which took a little over an hour), my understanding of the issue is that we are having useless bureaucracy. We trust people with our most valued possession (the free encyclopedia that we proudly showcase on the mainspace), and there is no reason we shouldn't trust them in other areas. Even when an article becomes featured by contribution of just half-a-dozen editors, we don't close that page for editing by others just because they are familiar with the topic and historically, this system has worked (in making the article "The best"). The /Assitance page, in my opinion, is a (near) perfect example of the way things should be: Anyone is still free to edit, but some people declare themselves willing to help with the backlog, if buzzed. If someone abuses the system, there are ways to deal with it. Assumption of either "bad faith" or "incompetence" towards new contributors should be avoided. When in doubt, consult WP:5. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Yes, I added a paragraph to that clerk page a couple weeks ago. Apparently what I added was highly offensive vandalism, and I should be permabanned for attempting to clarify that. My point there was that, allegedly, clerks had been telling non-clerks to get out of that page since they weren't clerks, in an offensive manner. So I tried to write something that recommended clerks to take a more productive approach, to suggest in a friendly way that there are other processes that need help more urgently, rather than simply send people off. If that wasn't clear, well, {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 08:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/r/Wikipedia%7EBureaucrats%27_noticeboard_Archive_6_7f0c.html"